Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Goderich Signal-Star, 1979-03-15, Page 8PAGE 8 —GODERICH SIGNAL -STAR, THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1979 Planning BY: JEFF SEDDON Peter and Frank Strickland, developers of a two story office -retail building on West Street in Gpderich, would rather switch than fight. That's why they altered plans for their project to make it a one spry unit with half the space rather than the two story building originally planned. A series of mistakes, misunderstandings and outdated building restrictions that could almost ,be considered comical were it not for their drastic results combined to make it impractical for the developers to go through with their original proposal. The Strickland building was originally a two story unit housing retail store space on the bottom floor and office area on the second floor. The developers hoped to turn the building into a classy combination of com- mercial enterprise and professional offices but their plan went astray after a series of problems. The building is already under_ construction on the West Street lot that formerly housed Hoy's Sunoco. The gas station burned fo the ground in a 1976 • fire and the lot remained empty until last fall when the Strickland building went under construction. Development of the lot was difficult because of stringent parking and building size restrictions imposed by the official plan of the town of Goderich. That plan regulates on site parking according to the floor space of any buildings on the lot. The formula that determines the amount of parking needed on the site tends to restrict the size of the building. Stricklands felt it was uneconomical to build a sin oiler buiidirrg and -- sought relief from the town's parking bylaws to permit a larger unit. They proposed an 8,000 square foot building that would require 40 parking spaces. A plan to use the rear 'of the lot for a parking area produced 18 spaces and on street parking in front of the unit allowed another nine vehicles to be parked. The developers went to the town's committee of adj,ust.ment for per- mission to build the unit 13 parking spaces short of the required number. That's where their problems began. Under the provincial planning act the committee of adjustment is required to hold, a public hearing over the request to permit neighboring landowners to object to the proposal. All lan- downers withing 200 feet of the subject property are to be notified of the hearing and invited to attend• and air their concerns. The committee sent out notices of the hearing to owners it felt would be affected by the project and held the public meeting. No objections were raised and the project was approved. Stricklands began construction last fall and in November things got sticky. William Beatty noticed a building going up on the property and asked what it was. When' he discovered what the project entailed and what it could mean to his St. Patrick Street property he was upset. He felt it was, within his rights to have •some problems he felt would be created by the project cleared up and demanded that the project be stopped until those problems could be dealt with. Beatty was incensed that he had not been .notified of :the public hearing over the Strickland building. His property is withing 200 feet of the subject property and he felt his rights had been ignored ,and that the committee of adjustment had ignored • its legal duty to inform him of the project. He got the Ontario Supreme Court to initiate a judicial review into the approval of the project and thus had construction stopped. Beatty felt that he and his neighbors on St. Patrick Street had been ignored by the committee of adjustment. He said only two residents of the street had been notified of the project and claimed that at least 20 should have been given an op- portunity to object. He said the committee of adjustment "simply didn't comply with the law" adding that he got the impression the committee felt it was "dealing with peasan- try". He fired off a letter to town clerk Larry McCabe complaining about the committee of ad- justment. He said McCabe told him that the committee was not under -the control of town council adding that he could see nothing the committee had done wrong in . approving the Strickland project. Beatty found the whole thing "incredible and unacceptable". He said the project would have definite impact on St. Patrick Street property and owners off that property should have been notified of the public hearing. One of the big concerns Beatty has about the project is the rear parking area. Access to the rear lot is gained from a lane between the Pine Shop and the laundromat that are east of the Strickland site. Cars entering the parking lot go up the driveway, across the rear of the laundromat building and onto the Strickland lot. Beatty feels the driveway will be a "24 hour roadway" that has not been dealt with by the committee of ad- justment. Along with the roadway landowners were a little concerned about fencing seperating the com- mercial property from the residential. They also had some doubts about snow removal from the enclosed parking area feeling that any fencing erected would be destroyed, by machinery attempting to remove fitter bill tosomal snow from the lot. But the biggest thorn in Beatty's side is the manner he feels he was treated by the committee of adjustment. He says he was "deeply hurt by the rudeness, the breach of law and the stupidity which has been thrust upon us". He calls the committee of adjustment's action a "wretched piece of behaviour". For its part the com- mittee of adjustment feels it acted according to procedure and did nothing wrong. The committee conceded that , not notifying landowners on St. Patrick Street about the public hearing. "may have been an oversight". But Fred Salter, secretary of the committee, quickly points out that the committee was not required to invite all landowners in the residential area. Salter said the planning act requires the com- mittee to notify all owners within 200 feet of the property in question. But he said it also per- mits the committee to include anyone it feels should be included in the public session. It stipulates that when a project borders on a residential area the owners within 100 feet should be notified about the bearing. The secretary said the committee had notified owners within 100 feet as required. At the public session there were no objections but one owner expressed a desire for a fence at the rear of the Strickland property to seperate the two land uses. The developer agreed to construct a fence and the problem was considered solved. Salter said it was "debateable" whether Beatty is within the required distance of the Strickland property. He added that rather than argue or go through the time and cost of a divisional court battle the committee felt it would be wiser to simply revoke the building permit on the Strickland building and hold another hearing. r, The second time around the committee sent out notices of the meeting to all owners within 400 feet of the Strickland building. Salter said there were three objections lodged at the second hearing, Beatty's, one concerning the fence at the rear of the property and another suggesting the parking lot would create a fire hazard because it reduced access to certain buildings. The •committee reviewed the concerns and stood by its original approval. Salter said the committee felt the project was worthwhile and granted the minor variance for the parking spaces. That decision was mailed out March 7 and anyone not in agreement has 21 days to object. if no objections are received the building permit for the project will be re -issued and it will go ahead. If an objection is lodged the matter will go to the Ontario Municipal Board for final decision. Rather than risk fur- ther construction delays the developers have altered the project to a one story, four unit building. By doing so the project conforms to the town's official plan and no committee of ad- justment approval is needed. The removal of one story of the building is the only change made. The rear parking lot and the driveway between the Laundromat and the furniture store will still be used for access to that parking area. Beatty has given no indication that he ' will continue to oppose the project and would not state whether he would take the committee of adjustment's decision to the OMB. He has until March 28 to decide. The whole controversy has left a bitter taste in the mouths of committee of adjustment members, the developers of the property and Beatty. The parties all feel the matter could possibly have been skirted and all feel something should be done to prevent the same thing happening on another project. All seem to feel that that responsibility rests on the shoulders of town council. Nick Hill, a principal of Hill and Borgal, the firm that designed the Strickland building, addressed Goderich planning board about the issue suggesting that if nothing is done to correct planning deficiencies in •Goderich the town would suffer in the future. Hill said the town's official plan was ' ar- chaic" and 'that the restrictions, it placed on .developments in the core area were "punitive". He said the loss of the Strickland project was a "planning tradgedy" adding that the building would have been a "superb expample of urban infilling". Hill said he could not see why the town of Goderich imposed stricter parking, regulations than centres like London, Stratford and Owen Sound, all communities larger than Goderich. He'said unless some of those restrictions are lifted the town would "start losing develop- ments it can't afford to lose". The planner said the Goderich official plan has not been reviewed in the past decade and that the ' docuement used by the town was "woefully poor". He suggested the town push to have the' officialplan updated and lands slated - for development properly designated. "Get a move on and let's get this thing put right," he told planning board. ,Hill told the board he mai+, be,,,ower emotional in his` concern for the planning restrictions in the town but added that it was very difficult to work with the plan. He said he had been given a free hand to design the Strickland building and had come up with a design he felt would make the West Street area very attractive. He said ,his clients had expressed a desire to construct a class building that they and the town could be proud of. The Stricklands have swallowed a different pill. Content that the project was running smoothly they ordered steel and hired con- tractors for the job and are now out some money for their trouble. Both feel the town is far too lax in its planning and both feel that the restrictions placed on lands in the Turn to page 18 AVieliminterzabohe } we feature Kelvinator, Read all about the quality. Kelvinator features you get for the low price you pay. Then come in and judge for yourself what a difference Kelvinator makes. . Hurry in. Save Range Judge the ranges other compa- nies make by the quality and good looks of this'Kelvincdor. Compare, Cooking is precise with infinite heat elements. Cooking is easy with a delayed cook and hold timer, an appliance outlet and controlled bake and broil. Kelvinator makes it so you and your kitchen will love it. - KELVINATOR ADMIRAL WOOD'S MAYTAG MUFFITT appliances &television 308 HURON ROAD GODERICH Save 431 "No Frost"refrigerator/freezer See what a difference Kelvinator makes There's a "Power Miser control that saves energy: Kelvinator beauty thdt's as reliable as it is good looking, That's the Kelvinator difference. We also Feature: MG L EUREKA Admiral • A mood's SANYO HOOVER ° 'EUREKA WHITE 5244301 WESTINGHOUSE 1